Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
that was awesome! Thank you for that. I appreciate it.
but lets thing about this for a second. in all seriousness. CLEARLY no part of the American left can be accused of racism in the same terms the fascist used to slaughter millions of innocent people.
But the political doctrines of the fascists included the marriage of government and business while also supporting workers forming unions as a counter point.
There are more than a few things that allign the modern left with the fascists (Italian/Spanish). I am not at all suggesting a comparison with the Naiz's.
Phew, I thought it was a bit of a low blow. And you're right that every ideology - I was going to say left or right, but there are more dimensions to it - carries with it the risk of becoming authoritarian. All fascism is authoritarian, not all authoritarianism is fascism. (I might add that once in power (see below) the Nazis banned unions and made strikes illegal.)
Part of it comes with what someone called the pivot moment in populist movements coming to power, something I feel not enough historians have paid attention to: The ability to ride a populist movement into poweris based on the talent to make enough people feel "Your lives are bad, I/we can fix it." The ability to remain in power is based on the talent to make enough people feel "Your lives are improving now, I/we fixed it." Even when not much has changed, in reality.
It's rare to find that talent in the same person or even group of persons. But when a movement succeeds, it's often because the authoritarian wing purges the elements who were good at arousing dissatisfaction. The Nazis killed off the actual socialists in their midst in 1934. Trotsky was dispatched when he started rocking the boat.
If that makes sense.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 06-03-2023 at 08:24 AM..
My point, you TONE DEAF LEFTIST, is that we dont know how to define extremist leftism.
Yes we do. extreme "leftism" is anarchy. The extreme of freedom, which is liberalism, is anarchy.
Quote:
We all know that the 20th century saw millions of people die at the hands of extremists from both the right (Fascism =uber-nationalism/racism) and the left (USSR/Chinese Communists under Mao, Pol Pot etc)
Ironic that your two examples of extremism are right wing. USSR and China were authoritarian, single party governments, that's right wing. Cambodia was a dictatorship under Pol Pot.
I litterally started this line of thinking by pointing out that we KNOW what rightwing extremist looks like. We KNOW fascism is and we understand its bad.
LITTERALFREAKINGLY
yet here you are pretending we need to cover the "right".
My point, you TONE DEAF LEFTIST, is that we dont know how to define extremist leftism. We all know that the 20th century saw millions of people die at the hands of extremists from both the right (Fascism =uber-nationalism/racism) and the left (USSR/Chinese Communists under Mao, Pol Pot etc)
But we really have not defined where the left crosses the line. Its a worthy discussion. But clearly not with you. you are here defending the most idiotic leftist ideologies and deflecting back to the right.
its disgusting.
I’m actually not a leftist. And I was responding to a specific post. I don’t remember defending anything in this thread maybe you can point out what ideologies I have defended.
Yes we do. extreme "leftism" is anarchy. The extreme of freedom, which is liberalism, is anarchy.
Ironic that your two examples of extremism are right wing. USSR and China were authoritarian, single party governments, that's right wing. Cambodia was a dictatorship under Pol Pot.
They are socialist/communist governments. That is left-wing.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,178 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19482
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrioticSuperman
OK so Miller is a safe bet that won't be giving money to WOKE Anheiser-Busch now called InBev. I just checked, Coors is owned by them, too.
This means A-B InBev owns:
- Stella Artois
- Beck's
- Coors
- Corona
- (I think they have a controlling steak in Modelo)
- Michelob
- Labatt
Which other ones?
I once bought friends Dos Equis over Models or Corona because Bud Light and Target are now not to be patronized, by most people..... let's keep up the pressure.. Target too...
Maybe Peroni?
In terms of mass produced beers and lagers, there are four companies that dominate the western markets, and they are Anheuser-Busch InBev, Molson Coors Brewing, Heineken N.V. and Carlsberg Group. These four companies own numerous beer brands, which are usually listed on their websites.
In terms of Liquor (Spirits), the market place is different and includes a number of other big multi-national companies, whilst there has also been a growth in smaller real ale and beer micro-breweries in the US and west.
You guys are ridiculous. What exactly are you boycotting against. And please don’t say woke because you don’t even know what that means. You just mimic what republicans tell you.
BINGO! And if someone came by and gave DeSantis enough money I have no doubt he would publicly claim all the 'woke' stuff was just a joke
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
